What can you do? Good question! "Nothing we do can make the 4 problems go away"

Back to words. I've cut it down a lot My bolding.

Horse wrote: But you can start by remembering these four giant problems our brains have evolved to deal with over the last few million years:1.Information overload sucks, so we aggressively filter. Noise becomes signal.2.Lack of meaning is confusing, so we fill in the gaps. Signal becomes a story.3.Need to act fast lest we lose our chance, so we jump to conclusions. Stories become decisions.4.This isn’t getting easier, so we try to remember the important bits. Decisions inform our mental models of the world.

In addition to the four problems, it would be useful to remember these four truths about how our solutions to these problems have problems of their own:1.We don’t see everything. Some of the information we filter out is actually useful and important.2.Our search for meaning can conjure illusions. We sometimes imagine details that were filled in by our assumptions, and construct meaning and stories that aren’t really there.3.Quick decisions can be seriously flawed. Some of the quick reactions and decisions we jump to are unfair, self-serving, and counter-productive.4.Our memory reinforces errors. Some of the stuff we remember for later just makes all of the above systems more biased, and more damaging to our thought processes.

By keeping the four problems with the world and the four consequences of our brain’s strategy to solve them, the availability heuristic (and, specifically, the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon) will insure that we notice our own biases more often.

Nothing we do can make the 4 problems go away (until we have a way to expand our minds’ computational power and memory storage to match that of the universe) but if we accept that we are permanently biased, but that there’s room for improvement, confirmation bias will continue to help us find evidence that supports this, which will ultimately lead us to better understanding ourselves.

So that's a list of the pitfalls - surely what would now be useful, instead of reams of psychology techno-jargon, would be some helpful tips to avoid them, in the riding / driving world?

Well, there's the one I mentioned earlier . . . if 'progress' and 'overtaking' or any variations on a theme are mentioned as positives or assessment criteria, then it's likely that drivers will be looking for evidence to support their intention to carry out those actions.

I'm sure this illusion goes a long way to explaining many of the things that are missed lurking in the shadows when driving/riding (and that's before you start the debate about blinding arc welding level headlights).

So that's a list of the pitfalls - surely what would now be useful, instead of reams of psychology techno-jargon, would be some helpful tips to avoid them, in the riding / driving world?

Well, there's the one I mentioned earlier . . . if 'progress' and 'overtaking' or any variations on a theme are mentioned as positives or assessment criteria, then it's likely that drivers will be looking for evidence to support their intention to carry out those actions.

Hmmm. That seems to be you seeking confirmation of your views. Do you never make progress or carry out overtakes then, in case your brain is making you over-confident?

And this is where I'm confused by responses: do you not agree with the the way cognitive bias can affect judgement and decisions on-road, or are you suggesting that certain drivers are exempt (see, another 'masters'/advanced police reference) or immune from them?

And this is where I'm confused by responses: I thought this sub-thread was about the "thirds" rule and our understanding of what the technique entails and how it is applied in practice. I don't really understand how cognitive bias, and the way it may affect judgement and decisions on-road, has got anything to do with the application of the "thirds" technique per se? Is it being suggested that the application of the "thirds" technique may be directly causative of some degree of cognitive bias? If that is the argument then it's a non sequitur.

The definition of cognitive bias on my Google machine states: "A cognitive bias is a mistake in reasoning, evaluating, remembering, or other cognitive process, often occurring as a result of holding onto one's preferences and beliefs regardless of contrary information." Having read that paragraph at least ten times I can't see the connection between the outcomes from an application of the "thirds" technique and cognitive bias. I think, in the context of the "thirds" technique, cognitive bias is a bit of a red herring.

The mental process of dividing the road ahead into three zones is a byproduct and adjunct to the scanning process. If the scanning process includes some form of cognitive bias it's the scanning process that is at fault not the "thirds" technique.

Why do you regard the "thirds" technique as involving "concentrating on", or "focusing on", the far distance to the detriment of gathering information in the more immediate vicinity? Was that how it was explained to you initially? Was that how you interpreted the initial explanation you were given? Is it the only way that you are able to make sense of how the technique will work in practice? Whatever the cause of your misunderstanding as to how the "thirds" technique is applied, and perhaps your view that it has potential as a causative factor in cognitive bias, please be assured that in itself the "thirds" technique doesn't require "concentration" or "focus" on the far distance, nor does the technique in itself cause cognitive bias.

As I've suggested earlier, it may be down to how we think about what we're doing. After all, no-one crashes deliberately, but they happen. So how? Is it that those drivers have a certain mindset and their cognitive biases support the decisions they make - supported by many instances when 'it; didn't go wrong. Tailgating on the motorway, perhaps a good example? Day after day after day it's fine. Then, one day, it's not.